Abstract
Laurie Stoll’s Should Schools Be Colorblind? provides an exemplary critical argument as to why society’s newfound preoccupation with claiming not to see color may actually be doing more harm than good in world where “race shouldn’t matter; but it [still] does” (p. 5). The book itself is centered on the singular question posed in the title and seeks to establish whether color blindness is the best way to approach race and combat racism within a schooling environment.
Chapter 1, “Race and Colorblindness in Schools Today,” sets out to establish the meaning and perceived value of color blindness within an educational context. Stoll begins the chapter by presenting the views of two schoolteachers who believe that race should not be acknowledged within the classroom. One teacher is quoted as stating, “I try not to see gender, you know, that race stuff—you just can’t even look at that” (p. 2). Interestingly this particular quotation is taken from Mr. Gira, whom Stoll identifies as a straight white man, and his color blindness is almost positioned within the book as a manifestation of his own racialized and gendered privilege. For ethnic minority women like myself, who are constantly made aware of our racialized and gendered identities, it is not so easy to simply not acknowledge race. However, Stoll identifies the second teacher, Ms. Martin, as a black woman, and we are quickly reminded that people of color can also be complicit in perpetuating and downplaying racial inequality (be it consciously or unconsciously), and I think this complexity would have been interesting to unpack in more depth.
Theoretical explanations distinguishing color-blind ideology from color-blind identity are also explored, but what really makes this section interesting is Stoll’s observation that color blindness has become a “virtuous” teaching identity. Color blindness is seen as an admirable quality within education, as it is believed that by not acknowledging race, one is able to avoid racial prejudice; ultimately leading to an equal education for all. However, by refusing to admit the importance of race, we risk estranging ourselves from the actual task of challenging and dismantling racism. Stoll also highlights how adopting a color-blind identity also serves as protection against valid critiques of racial prejudice, almost as if to say, “How can I be racist if I don’t see race?” (p. 6). I therefore agree with Stoll that racial color blindness is particularly silencing and damaging for students of color.
Chapter 2, “Now You See Race, Now You Don’t,” moves on to discuss Stoll’s two distinct research projects exploring color blindness in schools. In her first project, she adopted an ethnographic approach, drawing upon observations and interviews with 18 teachers based in the inner-city, racially diverse, liberal schooling environment of “Lakeview.” In contrast, Stoll’s second project, consisting of interviews and observations with 10 teachers and a survey of students, was conducted in a rural, largely white, politically conservative school named “Lyon.” A color-blind ideology was largely prevalent at both institutions, although it manifested in slightly different ways. At Lakeview, the largely adopted stance was that all students should matter, and the school’s racial diversity was often used as a means of evidencing its nonracism. Some teachers at this school even opposed initiatives for black students that aimed to address racial attainment gaps, because they were perceived as promoting racial difference. Delivering an equal and color-blind education was thus favored over an education based on racial equity.
In contrast, at Lyon, issues of race and inequality were downplayed by reference to the assertion that it was “better than it used to be” (p. 42). A number of highly racist incidents also came to light at Lyon. However, these were discussed largely under the racially neutral term bullying (p. 45). Stoll found that almost all examples of bullying provided by teachers were linked to race, and so although bullying may have been a neutral term, the actual act of bullying was not. Defining individual acts as bullying allowed to the school to gloss over institutional racism, reinforcing a color-blind ideology. But is simply challenging “bullies” (racists) by saying “you can’t say the N-word in my class” (p. 53) really enough? Stoll’s answer, rightly, is no. It needs to be addressed for what it is—racism—that is being maintained at a structural level.
Chapter 3, “Doing Antiracism in Schools,” provides an alternative to color-blind education, which Stoll defines as a “color-conscious” educational approach (p. 67). I personally applaud this idea, which emphasizes the need for teachers to think critically about the way race may shape experience within schools and wider society. Stoll argues that color-blind practices should be replaced with (1) strategies that encourage trusting and understanding relationships between teachers and students of color, (2) reflections upon teaching practices and their appropriateness for students of color, and (3) a reimagining of the curriculum to ensure that it is culturally “inclusive,” “relevant,” and informed by scholars of color (p. 82). By acknowledging color, teachers can open their eyes to the ways in which race manifests itself within the classroom and is entangled within approaches to teaching, responses to learning, the distribution of discipline, and access to opportunity.
The only question I felt the book left unanswered was how students felt about their school’s color-blind approaches to education. Interviews would have offered an interesting perspective, and we could have heard the other sides of the teacher’s stories. For example, when Ms. Brown highlighted how black boys were more likely to be sent to the head teacher and put the onus on them to “get their act together,” rather than questioning the differential distribution of discipline, I couldn’t help but wonder how students viewed this same phenomenon (p. 24). Nonetheless, Stoll provides an informed and detailed argument against color-blind approaches to education, which builds effectively upon existing literature concerned with conceptualizing color blindness more theoretically (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Burke 2018). Despite focusing specifically on education, the book also aligns itself with research concerning color blindness in other institutional settings. As a prison researcher, I find the similarities between the justification of racial color blindness in schools eerily similar to its validation within penal institutions (Alexander 2010). Therefore, the book is useful not only for those interested in the study of education but for anyone interested in the study of race, racial inequality, and/or racial equity within any social context.